Violence Begets Violence

Last month, as the FBI was closing in on his affair with Paula Broadwell and the political fight over Benghazi was heating up, David Petraeus made an undisclosed trip to Tripoli, Libya. The purpose of the trip, according to congressional and U.S. officials, was to examine what remained of the CIA's presence in the country after the United States abandoned the agency's base and nearby U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi after the Sept. 11 assassination of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/13/david-petraeus-s-secret-trip-to-libya-after-the-benghazi-attack.html

With the coming "unilateral" coalition of allied nations working together to help restore security and order to Libya, I am left thinking on the meaning and implications of words. Unilateral to me signifies unity, with nations coming together to exercise collectivist violence in order to show a violent despot that other violent despots will not tolerate violence. It carries the same weight at "bipartisan," which tells the peasants that the divided ruling class is coming together to make life more miserable for them. 

Will Most Americans Submit to New World Order?

Sherrie Questioning All writes;

Dave Hodges just wrote an article "Most Americans Will Submit to the New World Order."

He sent the article to me and I was surprised that a good portion is about me and two personal experiences  (CPS, Guidestones).   But it is ultimately about people needing to stand up together and if the government is allowed to take our guns then it is game over.

I think that there is a point at which most people will resist oppression, but the majority of Americans are simply not at that point yet, but the efforts of the federal government are seemingly trying to find out what that point is by reaching for it. That's not very productive in my mind.

There is a failure here in that people willingly submit to authority. People submit to force, not authority. When the state exists, it thrives through force, either physical or economical. The general population is the recipient of the negative effects of that force, at varying levels, but in a variety of different aspects of daily life, whether it's restrictions on what we can eat, where we can go, what we can buy, how much we can earn for our labor, or what we can say.

From Daniel Bonevac's analysis of positive and negative liberty:

In Rousseau's social contact, then, we surrender everything but get everything back. We give up everything to the community but gain a full share in the results of cooperation and so end up with more than we had before. The general will is not what the community wants but what is in it's interests. The general will, that is, desires not what the community perceives as being in its interests but what is really in its interests. The general will, that is, is the common good. People may be ignorant or deceived; they may not know what is in their own interests. They may vote for a candidate or policy that fails to promote the common good. The vote in such a case does not reflect the general will.

Looking back into history and around the world, it becomes apparent that differing cultures also have varying breaking points. In nations under extreme application of the positive liberty concept, those breaking points are much higher. In societies with negative liberty, those tolerances are much lower. I only wonder how much more Americans will allow themselves to be pushed around by central planners and despots...

A Paradigm Shift in the Learning Process

I am not supporter if this applies equally to everyone, but I learn better at my own pace than under institutional instruction or guidance. The term autodidactism refers to the process of self-education, a method by which more and more people are learning, from scholarly studies to practical knowledge and even job experience. This also means that companies in the education industry have to constantly innovate to stay competitive, such as my employer, Pearson. While the core principles guiding some companies in economically uncertain times may help them stay ahead, it is my belief that capitalization on the process of learning may someday cease to be a profitable endeavor.

The head of the MIT Medialab, whom some of us met last year, has picked out 'lifelong learning' as one of four big trends for 2013: "Education is something people do to you, whereas learning is something you do for yourself," he argues. "Today, the ability to learn on your own or from your peers has become really easy . . . this change is leading to a fundamental disruption in education . . . there is an inflection point coming in how people learn."

Technology is a huge driving force behind this shift, but as information becomes more accessible and affordable, the need for formal instruction in every area declines (though in some fields this will likely remain). Tablets and ereaders become more affordable, the opportunity to consume and share information grows, as does the need to facilitate this new direction in learning, rather than adhere to antiquated institutionalized learning methods. Private companies and public entities alike need to recognize this shift and promote it, rather than hold it back.

The Only Good State is a Dead State

An excerpt from The Utopian Myth of the Good State:

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified. Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. 

The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what "a virtuous and moral people" means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state—and frequently their own wealth and power. [...]

More: http://mises.org/daily/6331/The-Utopian-Myth-of-the-Good-State?noredirect=1#noredirect

"The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams

Yet so often, we hear emotional cries for the government to save the people, despite the state being the greatest threat in society to liberty, prosperity, and security. As I often argue, the state does not exist. All actions are individual ones by individuals, even when acting in unison with a collective. Point to what you can think the state is and I will show you where you have made error in observation. The White House is merely a building, the Constitution a document. We give them meaning through our consent. And when the state grows corrupt and becomes unworthy of saving, we can just as maternity withdraw our consent and shift toward voluntary society.